I've been swinging by his den of bible thumping, science denying, racist, misogynistic tools - and it's great. I've not been so excited since I stumbled across uncommon descent. If they're not bashing evilution, they're banging on about the perils of naturalism, and how angels might be messing with stuff. All the time, Vox pomps and preens - very much like DaveTard. I shall be updating here from time to time, but if you're a Tardaholic like me, your boats come in..

"Vox" is Theodore Beale, a spoiled rich kid -- son of multi-millionaire Jesus Freak and Federal Inmate (tax evasion) Robert Beale. He's also a wanna-be S-F writer and general idiot.

Lots of verbiage, damned little substance to his posts -- either on his blog or on Watta Nut Daily. I was amused, though, by this "column" on PZ Myers and "Crackergate" posted: July 14, 2008.

"Vox" gazes into his crystal balls and ventures that

Quote

"what actually demonstrates the cowardly nature of this self-aggrandizing atheist [PZ Myers, natch] is the fact that there is no chance that he will follow through on his anti-cracker threats now that it is clear there may be material consequences, however minor, to his actions.

The saltines are safe, for just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no vow that the militant atheist will not violate if he perceives any risk to his material well-being.

I've always been a fan of his 'psycho with a dead animal on his head' photo:

Brags about being in Mensa? Mohawk? Sci-fi fan? Thinks women* who get raped 'asked for it'? He must be a devil with the ladies.

(*who, by the way, shouldn't vote.)

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I read his book, The Irrational Atheist. It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.

I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well. I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument. At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary. It's something, anyway.

You seem to have liked it somewhat better. Perhaps I'll have a go at it when I'm on the road this fall.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

I read his book, The Irrational Atheist. It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.

I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well. I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument. At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary. It's something, anyway.

You seem to have liked it somewhat better. Perhaps I'll have a go at it when I'm on the road this fall.

You can get it for free from his site (there's a link somewhere) in pdf format. I have it but have not read it.

There was a blogger who took the time to read it and dissect it, and that may be in wherever the older post is, but Austin Cline has a lot of Vox, including a bit on his book (http://atheism.about.com/sitesearch.htm?terms=vox&SUName=atheism&TopNode=99).

The fact that these books are doing so well just shows how badly them atheism is doing.Atheism comes from the aftermath of 911... so it's about fear of islam.He has no clue what 'agnostic' means.. but is waffling on anyway.Host has just offered 'atheism is a religion'.Vox sounds like he's 14 on the phone, BTW.now and advert for "homeschool heartbeat"He might be debating Hitchens soon - but Dawkins wont debate Vox, because he's scared obviously.Again - Atheism is a reaction to Islam.USA is too rich, therefore atheism.what is wrong with atheism? It works under a delusion. it borrows its ethics and shit from religion... then some bizarre non sequitur to Stalin killing people.the commentator tells us about caveman morality - the vox talks about the evolution of morals.Commentator says "Vox = male man coulter". Vox says he's a 'cruelty artist'.Vox does his philosophy like he plays his first person shooters, apparently.Them atheists aren't free thinkers. There's lots of evidence for god, just not scientific evidence.Geology, Evloution and Biology = crocks of shit.Vox is part of a new Tard movement - against 'secular hedonism'..Vox had to choose between Nihilism and Christianity, apparently.Republicans are too leftist, also.

I read his book, The Irrational Atheist. It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.

I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well. I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument. At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary. It's something, anyway.

I offered my thoughts in three posts. If you read the discussion following the third, you'll see that Ftk brought my critique to VD's attention. VD briefly responded - without addressing any of the major points I raised. You'll also notice that Ftk never responded to any of the points I made, and the topic died. (Dog bites man.)

Third, given how I suspect the situation developed, it's a cogent illustration of the impotence of female reliance upon the law. I suspect we're going to be seeing more and more of this behavior as it becomes eminently clear to younger men that the law is becoming ever more hostile to their sex. One can just picture the woman imperiously making her righteous demand of the two young thugs in the full confidence that the law is not only on her side, but protecting her, then finding herself sailing through the air as her position and her misplaced confidence are met with a speedy and forceful rebuttal.